Was Cromwell Justified

Oliver Cromwell is today held by outstanding virtue by many people in Britain. Numerous Britons still see Cromwell as the father of modern British democracy due to his effective role during the English Revolution and the subsequent years he spent as a Member of Parliament. Nevertheless, his reputation in Ireland is quite the contrary. Cromwell only spent nine months of his life in Ireland yet amongst the island’s people he has gained a reputation as a genocidal monster hell-bent on massacring its population. However, even after extensive study, there is still much confusion and debate amongst historians about his exact aims and activities in Ireland. One document contributes to this confusion more than others. Having heard of soldiers murdering
When studying the 17th century the historian should tread carefully with terms such as ‘war crime’. At this time there were no written laws of war. The major Colonial Powers could legitimise massacres simply by telling their counterparts that they were acting in humanity’s interests. Cromwell it seems, always emphasized that it was wrong to allow for the unnecessary spilling of blood. He did this wherever he went in Ireland, but it was also something he did during the Anglo-Spanish war. Cromwell justified fighting in the war with Spain because of the ‘millions of Indians being so barbarously butchered by the Spaniards’. Obviously, in both cases Cromwell was simply trying to find a way of legitimising his actions. However, in Ireland the situation was slightly different. It must be understood that Cromwell, like many Englishmen of his status and generation would have seen Ireland as England’s land. After all, the island had, at least in theory been in English hands since the late 12th century. In Ireland, Cromwell was punishing rebels. Therefore, even according to unwritten rules it is very hard to come to the conclusion stating that Cromwell committed a ‘war crime’. The fact is the Confederate forces had risen against their English masters by setting up a state as they did. This does not mean the historian
Despite perceptions that often appear in nationalist historiography, there was certainly no policy of ethnic cleansing during the attack on the town. Tredagh was an English built town and most of the town’s leaders were ancestrally and culturally English. English. The sacking of the town was brutal when compared to other incidents that took place during The War of the Three Kingdoms. Historians often disagree over the number of casualties that resulted from the attack. Even Cromwell’s account over-estimates the numbers killed. If the New Model Army did wipe out the civilian population during the siege the town would not have recovered to sustain a population of 3000 by 1659. Nevertheless, the use of brutal tactics was certainly an occurrence during the siege. Cromwell wrote to William Lenthall on September 17th 1649. In this letter Cromwell informed Lenthall that there were approximately one hundred casualties when the steeple St. Peter’s Church was burned and also that a further 1000 Protestants ‘were put to the sword’ during Mass at the church. Cromwell’s ardent Puritanism meant that he would have seen the Protestants and Catholics as being away from God’s one true church. However, the aims in murdering innocent Protestants and Catholics were not solely religious in nature. It is more likely that the aims would have been political. In the same way